ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.
Cr.
Bail Application No. S-245 of 2019
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________
For
hearing of Bail Application.
1.
For orders on office objection at Flag
‘A’.
2.
For hearing of bail application.
01-07-2019.
Mr. Abdul Majeed Mirbahar Advocate for
applicant along with applicant.
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Chachar Advocate for
complainant.
Mr.
Aftab Hussain Shar Additional P.G.
.-.-.-.-.-
Applicant / accused Ghulam Hussain is present on
interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated
30.04.2019. Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. The
brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2019 at 1740 hours complainant namely
Jagan Bhayo appeared at PS and lodged FIR stating that in the year 2013 he had
purchased 2-4 agricultural land from one Qazi Abdul Aziz. Thereafter accused
Ghulam Hussain Bhayo and others used to remain angry upon them . On 15.04.2019
he, his nephew Jameel, relative Snaro along with their ladies were harvesting the
wheat crop, where at 1300 hours, accused Manik empty handed, Ghulam Hussain
(present applicant) with iron rod, Abdul Ghaffar armed with pistol, Altaf and
Abdul Ghani armed with lathies came there. Accused Manik accosted, abdused and
told complainant party to stop harvesting wheat crop otherwise they will face
consequences. Complainant prohibited them not to abuse on which accused Manik
instigated other accused not to spare them. On such instigation, accused Ghulam
Hussain caused iron rod upon complainant Jaggan but he raised arm hence he
received iron blow upon his left arm. Accused Altaf caused lathi on his right
shoulder, accused Abdul Ghani caused
lathi blow on his right arm while accused Abdul Ghaffar caused pistol butt
blows to complainant upon which he raised cries and fell down then accused went
away. Thereafter complainant was brought at Police Station wherefrom he
obtained a police letter for his medical treatment whereafter he was under
medical treatment of Civil Hospital Mirpur Mathlo, where he got registered FIR
of this case against accused.
3. It
is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the case against the
applicant is false and has been registered due to enmity as the parties are already
in litigation with civil dispute; that there is inordinate delay of six days in
lodging of the FIR ; that civil litigation is already going on between the
parties as such the complainant had lodged this false FIR against present
applicant in order to pressurize him; that all the P.Ws are close relatives to
the complainant hence they are interested; that all the offences are baialble
except section 337-F(v) PPC which is punishable for five years hence the same
does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that the parties have
patched up their dispute outside the Court, therefore, according to him the
interim bail in favour of applicant may be confirmed.
4. Learned
Additional P.G assisted by learned counsel for complainant though opposed his
bail application but submits that parties have comprised the matter outside the
Court and there is likelihood of the compromise in between them, therefore, in
order to avoid any further conflict and blood shed he has no objection if the
interim order already extended in favour of applicant /accused is confirmed.
5. I
have given my anxious though to the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the record available with me. It appears
from the record that the alleged incident took place on 15.04.2019 but FIR was
lodged by complainant on 21.04.2019 after the delay of six days for which no
satisfactory explanation has been furnished, therefore, on this ground false
implication of the applicant in this case with due deliberation and
consultation could not be ruled out. Apart from this, admittedly parties are in
litigation with regard to landed property pending before the trial Court,
therefore, on this ground also false implication could not be ruled out.
Besides this the only allegation against the applicant / accused is that he
caused / inflicted iron rod blow upon the complainant Jagan Bhayo which he
received on his left wrist joint. The said offence falls under section 337-F(v)
PPC for which the punishment is not more than five years thus it also appears that the case of applicant
/ accused does not fall within the
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances grant of
bail is rule and its refusal is an exceptions. No exceptional ground appears to
withhold bail of the accused.
6. Learned Additional P.G assisted by counsel for
complainant has also recorded his no objection if the interim pre-arrest bail
already extended to the applicant /accused is confirmed on same terms and
conditions.
7. In
view of above, I confirm interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the
applicant / accused on same terms and conditions with directions to the
applicant / accused to appear before the trial Court to face trial. In case the
applicant / accused misuses the bail the trial Court would be competent to
cancel the bail of the applicant / accused before making any reference to this
Court. It is sated by the parties that the parties have compromised the matter,
therefore, trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously preferably
within the period of two months as per law under intimation to this Court.
8.
Needless to mention here that observations, if any, made hereinabove are
tentative in nature and would not influence the trial court while deciding the
case of the applicant/accused on merits.
The bail application stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.